Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Minimalist Contracts v2
You never pended it, but you most certainly created it, which adds it
to the proposal pool. To quote your message "I create and intend to
Rubberstamp in my capcity as Notary without 3 objections the following
proposal."
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:38 PM Ned Strange wrote:
>
> I never actually pended it or submitted it to the proposal pool
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal. V.J., you might want to retract
> > yours, as I've fixed a ton of bugs and included it in this.
> >
> > -Aris
> > ---
> >
> > Title: Minimalist Contracts v2
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> > Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> > have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> > rules
> > created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> > have been removed before its resolution.
> >
> > [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control or auction assets until
> > we
> > decide to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
> >
> > # 1 Repeal
> >
> > Destroy all contracts.
> >
> > Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521, 2527, and 2517, in
> > that order.
> >
> > In rule 2545 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract"
> >
> > In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts",
> > change the last comma in the last sentence of the second paragraph
> > to a period, deleting the all parts of the sentence beyond it, and delete
> > the last paragraph.
> >
> > In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and
> > the last sentence.
> >
> > In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all instances of the text
> > "or contract"
> >
> > In rule 2550 "Bidding", replace the last comma with a full stop and
> > delete all text after it, and delete all instances of the text "or
> > contract"
> >
> > In rule 2483 "Economics", delete the text "contracts,"
> >
> > In rule 1994 "Ownership of Land", delete the text "Land belonging to a
> > contract is called Communal Land." and delete the text "Together,
> > Communal Land and Private Land are called Proprietary Land." and
> > replace the text "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private
> > Land." with "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private Land
> > (syn. Proprietary Land)
> >
> > In rule 2561 "Asset Generation with Facilities", delete the text "3.
> > if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to that
> > contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do so." and
> > renumber the fourth bullet point 3.
> >
> > # 2 Replacement
> >
> > Reenact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
> >
> > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> > make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
> > binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> > is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
> > by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
> > parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
> > parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
> > parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
> > agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
> > contract.
> >
> > Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
> > accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
> > by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
> > between the contract and the rules.
> >
> > A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party to
> > it as allowed in the contract.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Minimalist Contracts v2
I never actually pended it or submitted it to the proposal pool
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal. V.J., you might want to retract
> yours, as I've fixed a ton of bugs and included it in this.
>
> -Aris
> ---
>
> Title: Minimalist Contracts v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>
>
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control or auction assets until we
> decide to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>
> # 1 Repeal
>
> Destroy all contracts.
>
> Repeal rules 2524, 2526, 2520, 2525, 2522, 2523, 2521, 2527, and 2517, in
> that order.
>
> In rule 2545 "Auctions", delete the text "or contract"
>
> In rule 2547 "The Auctioneer", delete the text "or contracts",
> change the last comma in the last sentence of the second paragraph
> to a period, deleting the all parts of the sentence beyond it, and delete
> the last paragraph.
>
> In rule 2548 "The Auction Announcer" delete the text "or contract" and
> the last sentence.
>
> In rule 2549 "Auction Initiation", delete all instances of the text
> "or contract"
>
> In rule 2550 "Bidding", replace the last comma with a full stop and
> delete all text after it, and delete all instances of the text "or
> contract"
>
> In rule 2483 "Economics", delete the text "contracts,"
>
> In rule 1994 "Ownership of Land", delete the text "Land belonging to a
> contract is called Communal Land." and delete the text "Together,
> Communal Land and Private Land are called Proprietary Land." and
> replace the text "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private
> Land." with "Land belonging to any other entity is called Private Land
> (syn. Proprietary Land)
>
> In rule 2561 "Asset Generation with Facilities", delete the text "3.
> if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to that
> contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do so." and
> renumber the fourth bullet point 3.
>
> # 2 Replacement
>
> Reenact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>
> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
> by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
> contract.
>
> Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
> accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
> by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
> between the contract and the rules.
>
> A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party to
> it as allowed in the contract.
--
>From V.J. Rada
DIS: [Draft] Anonymity Patch v2
Here's another draft. I've tweaked it to weaken the requirement by adding "directly", so presumably the tricks people have been pulling with hash-triggered pledges and the like will still work. I also upped the power, to show that I'm increasing the power of a rule past 3.0. I remain open to recommendations on how to improve this, but only if they don't have the problems that past suggestions have had. I'd also like to ask whether people prefer that I limit this to just the sender. I think that a broader restriction is required to stop similar problems, but could be convinced to separate that out. -Aris Title: Anonymity Patch v2 Adoption index: 3.1 Author: Aris Co-authors: G. Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by appending "In order for an action to be taken by sending a message, the message must include all information (such as the sender's identity) which is not generally available to players and is directly required to understand the game effect of the message." to the last paragraph of the rule. Change the power of Rule 478, "Fora", to 3.1. [I'm astonished that no one has thought to do this before now, given that this rule contains conditions for ALL actions taken by sending messages to work.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Petition for Correction
Nope, although they used to be. The rule cleanup rule was reverted to an earlier form by Proposal 8000 (technically, the new one was repealed and the old one reenacted). In my book, this side effect is really a good thing. This is easily one of the most common types of errors that needs to be fixed. -ArisOn Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:41 PM Ned Strange wrote: > > aren't people specifically banned from changing rules to all caps or > from them in this way > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Despite this being a meaningful semantic change, it's also a blatantly > > obvious typo fix. Without objection, I intend to change the text > > "SHALL" to "shall" in Rule 2515, "Distributing Assets". > > > > -Aris > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:25 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > >> > >> Without objection, I do so. > >> > >> -Aris > >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:51 PM Aris Merchant > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Without objection, I intend to change the text "statment" to > >> > "statement" in Rule 2471, "No Faking". > >> > > >> > -Aris > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How silly is silliness?
That's right. Sorry OscarMeyr, I was very tired when I wrote it. ~Corona On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:12 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > that cfj decided that the sillyness of an action is an inextricable > conditional. > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Benjamin Schultz > wrote: > > Testing the lmits of Sillyness by contract, I act on behalf of VJ Rada to > > issue a trust token to me. Because the open-ended nature of the contract > > is just plain silly. > > > > OscarMeyr, who hasn't had enough coffee to parse CFJ 3641 > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
DIS: Re: BUS: Petition for Correction
aren't people specifically banned from changing rules to all caps or from them in this way On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Despite this being a meaningful semantic change, it's also a blatantly > obvious typo fix. Without objection, I intend to change the text > "SHALL" to "shall" in Rule 2515, "Distributing Assets". > > -Aris > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 9:25 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: >> >> Without objection, I do so. >> >> -Aris >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:51 PM Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > >> > Without objection, I intend to change the text "statment" to >> > "statement" in Rule 2471, "No Faking". >> > >> > -Aris -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie Auction (now under new rules!)
I bid 1 coin On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 18:05 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I withdraw my previous bid and instead bid 1 coin. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On June 21, 2018 12:03 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > > > > > > > I bid 15 coins > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > I bid 14 coins in the ongoing zombie auction. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On June 20, 2018 11:06 PM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > I bid 9 coins. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:47 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I initiate a zombie auction with the following lots. The ITEMS in > each > > > > > > > > > > lot is to have that player's master switch set to the auction > winner. > > > > > > > > > > The AUCTIONEER is Agora. The ANNOUNCER is myself (as Registrar). > The > > > > > > > > > > MINIMUM BID/CURRENCY is 1 Coin. The auction ends 7 days after this > > > > > > > > > > announcement, or 96 hours after the last bid change (whichever > comes > > > > > > > > > > first). > > > > > > > > > > - LOTS (from highest to lowest winning bid): > > > > > > > > > > Kenyon, Ouri, o, Quazie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note CURRENT ZOMBIE MASTERS AND ZOMBIES CANNOT BID (much less > competition!) > > > > > > > > > > I've ordered the zombie lots based on the following excerpt from > the > > > > > > > > > > most-recent Treasuror's Report. It is not in any way guaranteed to > be > > > > > > > > > > current (nor do I purport that it is a portion of a > currently-accurate > > > > > > > > > > report). > > > > > > > > > > > > +-++++---+++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs| > > > > > > > > > > > > > +-++++---+++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > > |Kenyon | 14| 37| 4| 6| 20| 3| 45| 9| 0| 11| > > > > > > > > > > > > |Ouri | 0| 10| 0| 0| 0| 0| 24| 4| 0| 11| > > > > > > > > > > > > |o | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > > > > > > > > > > > |Quazie | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > > > > From V.J. Rada > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: How silly is silliness?
that cfj decided that the sillyness of an action is an inextricable conditional. On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 1:16 AM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > Testing the lmits of Sillyness by contract, I act on behalf of VJ Rada to > issue a trust token to me. Because the open-ended nature of the contract > is just plain silly. > > OscarMeyr, who hasn't had enough coffee to parse CFJ 3641 -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
Additional gratuity: There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub) without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links) would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence). The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct one. (this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if the matter is otherwise unclear). I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum, I'm not opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the Now, and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't know about that would make it easier. On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I, for one, would be willing to experiment with it, if we made sure that > there was strict protections both technically and in the rules to avoid > tampering or loss of information. > > On 06/20/2018 05:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > >> I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public > >> forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC > >> of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being > >> public fora. > > We've had public fora that weren't mailing lists before now (although > > admittedly, it was a consequence of a scam). > > > > I'm opposed to being required to use any external interface to > > participate in the game. On the other hand, I'm less opposed to being > > /permitted/ to use an external interface to participate in the game. > > Reports could still go to a-o if necessary. > > > > It's probably a good idea to have an email copy of everything for > > recordkeeping purposes (i.e. Agora historical records, rather than > > recordkeepor records), but we could post that to the email archives > > from the Git repository using a hook, or perhaps in batches. > > > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
I, for one, would be willing to experiment with it, if we made sure that there was strict protections both technically and in the rules to avoid tampering or loss of information. On 06/20/2018 05:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public >> forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC >> of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being >> public fora. > We've had public fora that weren't mailing lists before now (although > admittedly, it was a consequence of a scam). > > I'm opposed to being required to use any external interface to > participate in the game. On the other hand, I'm less opposed to being > /permitted/ to use an external interface to participate in the game. > Reports could still go to a-o if necessary. > > It's probably a good idea to have an email copy of everything for > recordkeeping purposes (i.e. Agora historical records, rather than > recordkeepor records), but we could post that to the email archives > from the Git repository using a hook, or perhaps in batches. > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public > forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC > of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being > public fora. We've had public fora that weren't mailing lists before now (although admittedly, it was a consequence of a scam). I'm opposed to being required to use any external interface to participate in the game. On the other hand, I'm less opposed to being /permitted/ to use an external interface to participate in the game. Reports could still go to a-o if necessary. It's probably a good idea to have an email copy of everything for recordkeeping purposes (i.e. Agora historical records, rather than recordkeepor records), but we could post that to the email archives from the Git repository using a hook, or perhaps in batches. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
I favor this with significant deference to anyone else. On 06/20/2018 03:16 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM Alex Smith > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including >>> revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): >>> >>> https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt >>> https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt >>> >>> I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- >>> limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of >>> ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case >>> the rulesets bounce from BUS. >> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to >> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a >> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL >> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. >> >> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't >> it's probably because of your disclaimer. > > I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose. > A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they > want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as > the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required > information. > > CFJ: G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR. > > Arguments: See above. > > -Aris > >> -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being public fora. On 06/20/2018 03:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could >> change the link contents instantly to anything before most people >> will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of >> those links is the only evidence. >> >> I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could >> cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. > Semi-serious suggestion: make the Github repository a public forum. > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > point? > >> Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" >> means actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's >> ISID. The cases that allowed outside references are generally by- >> announcement actions, where outside references work because the >> specification is like this: >> "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" >> for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual >> announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link >> that has a clear specification. >> >> So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" >> because e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link >> without an announced verb/context doesn't do the trick. > Right, the message needs to contain enough context to find the action. > I don't think that's a problem with the message in question, though. > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
Just as some added fun, note that I found an error (in the "last change" date, so not something required to be reported) - I pushed the fix so the current *document* behind the link is not the one it was when I published the links. Probably a moot point but there it is. On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:21 PM Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > > > wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > > > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > > > > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > > > > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > > > > point? > > > > > > > > > It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as > > > suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the > > > receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring > > > confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and > > > originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally > > > impossible to publish a report by reference. > > > > Now I'm beginning to get concerned as to whether the URL itself self- > > ratifies, and whether that ratifies the content visible via it at the > > time. G. is right in that only the parts of the message that are > > actually sent to a public forum can self-ratify. So if a URL is > > purporting to be a report... > > > > (Of course, it doesn't matter for a Rulekeepor report as that > > rightfully doesn't self-ratify anyway. But it could be a problem in > > other cases.) > > > The URL isn't purporting to be a report, it's purporting to contain a > report. I think there's a substantial difference. > > Are you suggesting that information can't be incorporated into a message by > reference? That happens all the time the legal systems of other > jurisdictions. Now, I'm not arguing that this even vaguely satisfies the > requirements for incorporation by reference, just that it's possible. > > -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:21 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > > wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > > > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > > > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > > > point? > > > > > > It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as > > suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the > > receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring > > confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and > > originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally > > impossible to publish a report by reference. > > Now I'm beginning to get concerned as to whether the URL itself self- > ratifies, and whether that ratifies the content visible via it at the > time. G. is right in that only the parts of the message that are > actually sent to a public forum can self-ratify. So if a URL is > purporting to be a report... > > (Of course, it doesn't matter for a Rulekeepor report as that > rightfully doesn't self-ratify anyway. But it could be a problem in > other cases.) The URL isn't purporting to be a report, it's purporting to contain a report. I think there's a substantial difference. Are you suggesting that information can't be incorporated into a message by reference? That happens all the time the legal systems of other jurisdictions. Now, I'm not arguing that this even vaguely satisfies the requirements for incorporation by reference, just that it's possible. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > wrote: > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > > point? > > > It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as > suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the > receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring > confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and > originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally > impossible to publish a report by reference. Now I'm beginning to get concerned as to whether the URL itself self- ratifies, and whether that ratifies the content visible via it at the time. G. is right in that only the parts of the message that are actually sent to a public forum can self-ratify. So if a URL is purporting to be a report... (Of course, it doesn't matter for a Rulekeepor report as that rightfully doesn't self-ratify anyway. But it could be a problem in other cases.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could > > change the link contents instantly to anything before most people > > will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of > > those links is the only evidence. > > > > I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could > > cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. > Semi-serious suggestion: make the Github repository a public forum. > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > point? It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally impossible to publish a report by reference. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > Right, the message needs to contain enough context to find the action. > I don't think that's a problem with the message in question, though. So first, I don't think you could argue that I published a Document that contained a report. So for the purposes of ratification (which in all cases is tied to the words "public document") I think this couldn't be ratified (based on common definitions of document). Now, "weekly reports" can be spread over multiple documents and ratified in parts. But Rule 2143 says "the publication of all such information" is the standard for reports. I think it stretches it quite a bit to say that you published ALL the information when some of that information hasn't in fact been published.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could > change the link contents instantly to anything before most people > will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of > those links is the only evidence. > > I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could > cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. Semi-serious suggestion: make the Github repository a public forum. For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some point? > Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" > means actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's > ISID. The cases that allowed outside references are generally by- > announcement actions, where outside references work because the > specification is like this: > "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" > for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual > announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link > that has a clear specification. > > So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" > because e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link > without an announced verb/context doesn't do the trick. Right, the message needs to contain enough context to find the action. I don't think that's a problem with the message in question, though. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > > > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- > > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of > > ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case > > the rulesets bounce from BUS. > > Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to > publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a > reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL > that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. > > This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't > it's probably because of your disclaimer. Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the only evidence. I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions, where outside references work because the specification is like this: "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that has a clear specification. So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" because e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an announced verb/context doesn't do the trick.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > > > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- > > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of > > ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case > > the rulesets bounce from BUS. > > Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to > publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a > reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL > that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. > > This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't > it's probably because of your disclaimer. I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose. A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required information. CFJ: G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR. Arguments: See above. -Aris > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of > ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case > the rulesets bounce from BUS. Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't it's probably because of your disclaimer. -- ais523
